POPE
JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Steigmann and Appleton concurred in the judgment and
opinion.

OPINION

POPE
JUSTICE.

¶
1 Defendant, Alexandria A. Washington, appeals the trial
court's decision finding her unfit to stand trial. On
appeal, defendant argues the court's decision should be
reversed and the cause remanded for a new fitness hearing
because once the court had a bona fide doubt as to
her fitness, the court was required to appoint counsel to
represent her during the fitness hearing, even over her
objection. The State concedes the trial court erred by
failing to appoint counsel to represent defendant at the
fitness hearing and agrees the court's decision should be
reversed and this cause remanded for a new fitness hearing,
during which defendant is to be represented by counsel. We
reverse and remand with directions.

¶
2 I. BACKGROUND

¶
3 On August 7, 2014, defendant was charged by information
with two Class A misdemeanor counts of resisting or
obstructing a peace officer and a correctional institution
employee. 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) (West 2014). At her August 2014
arraignment, defendant waived her right to counsel, electing
to proceed pro se, and requested the judge establish
jurisdiction. When the trial court informed defendant the
court had personal jurisdiction over her, defendant
responded: "No. That just means like I've been
kidnapped and held for ransom which is bail, but I'm
trying to establish proper jurisdiction." Defendant then
refused to plead, stating: "I'm not pleading. I
don't relinquish any jurisdiction to you. I'm not
pleading at all." The trial court then set a hearing on
jurisdiction for September 3, 2014, and released defendant on
a personal recognizance bond.

¶
4 Prior to the hearing, defendant filed multiple documents
with the trial court, challenging the court's
jurisdiction and seeking dismissal on that ground. One of the
documents was styled "United States of America,
Plaintiff Vs. Azmiyah Bey a.k.a. Alexandria Washington"
and entitled "Take Judicial Notice and Administrative
Notice; In Nature Of a Writ Of Nobis, And A demand For For
(sic) Failure to State The Jurisdiction And
Venue." At the hearing, the trial court denied
defendant's motion, finding it had personal jurisdiction
of the defendant and jurisdiction over the charges. Following
this ruling, the trial court set a trial date, but defendant
continued to challenge the court's jurisdiction. At this
point, the State raised the issue of fitness. The court then
asked defendant whether any medical professional had
indicated whether she was fit for trial, which defendant
refused to answer. (Apparently, defendant had another case
pending with the trial court, case No. 11-JA-14, and the
court appears to be inquiring about potential findings in
that case. That case had a "Petition for Termination of
Parental Rights" pending.) The court stated it did not
have a bona fide doubt as to defendant's fitness
at that time. The court then asked defendant whether she
pleaded guilty or not guilty, to which she responded: "I
am not relinquishing any jurisdiction to this court,
so." The court interpreted this response as a plea of
not guilty and set the cause for trial.

¶
5 At a hearing on September 17, 2014, in both the juvenile
and misdemeanor cases, defendant continued to contest the
court's jurisdiction, arguing jurisdiction cannot be
established until each and every person in the State of
Illinois appeared against her because the cause of action
named "The People of the State of Illinois" as the
plaintiff.

¶
6 At a hearing on October 10, 2014, defendant continued to
contest the trial court's jurisdiction. At this hearing,
defendant stated she would not return to court unless the
court established jurisdiction by allowing defendant to face
her accusers, which she contended were all the people in the
State of Illinois. She repeatedly interrupted the court and
remained fixated on whether the court had jurisdiction. The
court attempted to proceed with the motions in
limine filed by the State, and defendant continued to
contest the court's jurisdiction. Once the court ruled on
the motions, the State again questioned defendant's
fitness. The court determined there was a bona fide
doubt of defendant's fitness and ordered a fitness
evaluation. (We note the trial judge was eminently patient
with defendant at each and every hearing in this matter.)

¶
7 Following the finding of bona fide doubt as to
defendant's fitness, but before the fitness evaluation
was finalized, the court held three status hearings in
November 2014. At the first November 2014 hearing, the State
suggested counsel should be appointed to represent defendant
before the case moved any further because the bona
fide doubt as to defendant's fitness rendered her
waiver of counsel invalid. Counsel was not appointed, and
defendant appeared pro se at each hearing.

¶
8 At a hearing on December 18, 2014, the trial court received
the results from the fitness evaluation, which indicated
defendant was unfit. Defendant appeared pro se. The
court set a fitness hearing, and the State proffered if
defendant were to be found unfit, due process would require
the court to appoint a lawyer to represent her in the
underlying proceeding. The State further represented it was
unsure whether defendant should have counsel appointed prior
to the fitness hearing. The court opined it would wait until
it made a finding with respect to fitness before deciding
whether to appoint counsel. The State agreed this was the
correct procedure.

¶
9 The fitness hearing occurred on January 9, 2015, and
defendant appeared pro se. Dr. Jerry Boyd, the
clinical psychologist who evaluated defendant, testified on
behalf of the State, and his professional opinion was
defendant was not fit to stand trial. Defendant did not
cross-examine Dr. Boyd or call a medical professional to
rebut Dr. Boyd's testimony. When asked by the trial court
whether she had any evidence to present, defendant responded,
"No." The court then asked if she would mind
answering a few questions. Defendant agreed to answer
questions and was sworn as a witness. The trial court
conducted the direct examination, and the State did not
cross-examine her. The court asked defendant to explain how
she created some of the documents she had filed with the
court and to explain the nature of the proceedings. The court
then requested Dr. Boyd be recalled to the stand and asked
whether defendant's testimony changed his medical
opinion. Dr. Boyd stated his medical opinion was unchanged.
Defendant then elected to cross-examine Dr. Boyd.
Defendant's cross-examination focused on her belief she
was no longer suffering from a mental illness because she had
been off medication since 2010, and she questioned how she
could be unfit to stand trial if she was no longer medicated.
Dr. Boyd explained how the stress of court proceedings could
prompt prior illnesses to manifest again, even if the
symptoms had been dormant.

¶
10 Following the presentation of evidence, the State argued
defendant should be determined unfit because of her fixation
on tertiary matters, such as jurisdiction. This fixation
prevented defendant from assisting with her defense. The
State also argued to allow defendant to proceed pro
se would deprive defendant of her due process rights.
Defendant did not present an argument. The trial court
concluded defendant was unfit and began considering whom to
appoint as counsel for defendant. Defendant stated she would
not accept an attorney. In response, the State argued counsel
must be appointed, even over defendant's objection, to
ensure defendant received due process of law. The court
explained this fact to defendant and appointed the public
defender.

¶
11 Notice of appeal challenging the finding of unfitness was
timely filed on January 23, 2015. An order finding a
defendant unfit to stand trial is an appealable order
pursuant to ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.